Ron Paul still courting racist right?

After leaving Paul alone for a month or two, I’ve got another post at my personal blog ripping on him for his astoundingly bad positions on racial issues.

Despite the fact that the CRA’s benefits have far outweighed any negative consequences, Paul would still vote against it. Why? Because, apparently, white people’s property rights are more important than black people’s individual liberties.

Over at the comments thread on Hit and Run amidst the pissing and moaning by Paultards that Russert actually took their candidate seriously enough to ask some grown-up questions, commenter Joe is addressing the issue well:

“Even if you don’t like the sections of the Civil Rights Act that banned discrimination in places of public accommodation, you need to acknowledge that adopting racial equality as the law of the land was a great step forward for freedom and justice. […] All sorts of institutionalized policies intended to maintain segregation and the racial caste system were in place before the 1964 Act. […] The racists who objected to black people sitting at lunch counters most certainly did solicit the government to help them oppress their neighbors. They supported all sorts of oppressive laws at the state and federal level, which the CRA repealed.”

Joe also got in a great one liner in response to someone who said the CRA had devastating effects: “Yeah, think of all those white people who didn’t get to have their own water fountains and schools.”

Full Story: Klintron’s Brain.

12 Comments

  1. “Despite the fact that the CRA?s benefits have far outweighed any negative consequences, Paul would still vote against it.”

    I suppose that depends on if you’ve ever been excluded from a job based on racial quotas.

    Plus, Ron is for personal liberties for everyone..

    “?Even if you don?t like the sections of the Civil Rights Act that banned discrimination in places of public accommodation, you need to acknowledge that adopting racial equality as the law of the land was a great step forward for freedom and justice”

    He did exactly that. You know other people voted against it too, take for instance Robert Byrd (D-WV), and other “dixiecrats” who voted against the bill.

  2. let’s not forget that he wasn’t even in the united states when the CRA was passed.. he was serving his country as a doctor in the military.

  3. Bryan, I could be wrong but I don’t think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established racial quotas. It did ban employers from discriminating by race and sex, though. Full text here, I don’t have time to read it right now though: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript

    Besides, I would say that a few whites getting turned down for jobs here and there is worth giving blacks access to schools, etc.

    I’m not saying there weren’t drawbacks to the CRA, but again the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

    “Plus, Ron is for personal liberties for everyone..”

    That’s what he says, but if you look at his actual positions he places property rights ahead of civil liberties.

    “He did exactly that.”

    No, he didn’t.

    “You know other people voted against it too, take for instance Robert Byrd (D-WV), and other ‘dixiecrats’ who voted against the bill.”

    That has nothing to do with the matter at hand (FWIW, Byrd not says he regrets opposing the CRA and his involvement in the KKK and routinely receives high marks from the NAACP – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Filibuster_of_the_Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964).

    “let?s not forget that he wasn?t even in the united states when the CRA was passed.. he was serving his country as a doctor in the military.”

    Again, nothing to do with the matter at hand. Russert asked Paul if he’d vote for the CRA if it were introduced today. Paul said he would not.

  4. I think that Ron Paul was trying to say that it was HOW the CRA was written that he thought was wrong. I mean, I believe in religious freedom but I am against the Hate Speech laws that are in most other modern countries. So would it be right to say that I am progaybashing? I would say that is preposterous. And the bottom line is that Ron Paul is still the best candidate, if you are against Paul tell me you are FOR.

  5. G.V. – his opposition to the CRA is that it wasn’t perfect. Your analogy doesn’t hold up because because it was a pretty expansive bill. I can forgive people for voting against it at the time because they didn’t have any hindsight to know how well it would pan out. Ron Paul’s claim that the CRA did nothing to improve race relations and decreased individual liberty is so outrageously incorrect I’m surprised I even have to argue it with anyone. The real reason for most of the opposition to the bill at the time (and I suspect Paul’s as well) is that it took away state (and county and city) “rights” to pass discriminatory laws (remember, it wasn’t just individual business owners deciding they wouldn’t allow blacks in their businesses, but in many cases laws that said they were not allowed to serve blacks).

    With regards to who I am for, see these two posts:

    http://www.klintron.com/brain/archives/2007/12/25/parting-shots-democrats/

    http://www.klintron.com/brain/archives/2007/12/24/parting-shots-republicans/

  6. What about Paul’s ties to David Duke? And Duke’s ties to Ahmadinejad? This doesn’t bother his supporters?!

  7. I’m not aware of any ties between Paul and Duke. Duke has posted Paul essays and links on his site, but I don’t think he’s ever even endorsed Paul.

  8. If I could point to one thing to cover Ron Paul, I would point to this article by Tucker Carlson (one of the only authentic news commentator on television) in the New Republic:

    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=83665295-1de6-4571-af9c-0a90f6d1fde0

    Do you know what I have found about the underground? When a movement starts to roll, those in the underground will attack others of the underground because they do not agree with them one hundred percent.

    Where is the hate and the articles attacking Hillary Clinton? Did you see her new ad? She acts as if she is literally ruler of the world, and that she is giving us GIFTS with our OWN TAX MONEY and acting as if we should be thanking her.

    Where is all the attacks from the underground on her?

  9. G.V. – Far better writers and researchers than I have dedicated countless words attacking Hillary, so I haven’t felt obligated to spend my time doing so. I think Paul is more interesting to most of the readers here and at Klintron’s Brain, and there hasn’t been much critical examination of his career and positions. He tends to either be dismissed or praised. The Meet the Press interview was a welcome change.

    As far as him not being perfect – it’s not just that he’s not perfect, it’s that he holds beliefs that are antithetical to mine. But I still think he’d make the best president of the Republican pack, and maybe better than Clinton, but the executive office is a powerful one and I’m not sure I can still trust Paul to make sound decisions.

  10. I finally see where you are coming from, and I understand. Sometimes it is easy to fall into the bandwagon, hell I supported Dean last time, and hell… I am glad you are talking about him.

  11. The larger political blogosphere is kinda behind on the whole thing: Daily Kos just picked up on the Ron Paul racism thing today: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/26/85617/090/639/426519

Comments are closed.

© 2021 Technoccult

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑

%d bloggers like this: